Investor's Corner
Tesla bears start GoFundMe page for TSLA short accused of harassing Fremont workers
One of Tesla’s fiercest critics who was reportedly forced to cease his online initiatives against the company has returned to start a GoFundMe page for another TSLA bear, who was recently issued a temporary restraining order for stalking, harassing, and endangering a group of employees from the Fremont factory. The fundraiser has been successful so far, with 373 people raising over $81,000 in just one day.
On Friday, the Alameda County Superior Court in CA granted a temporary restraining order against Randeep Hothi, the man behind @skabooshka, a prominent anti-Tesla account on Twitter. Tesla accused Hothi of committing several offenses against the company, including injuring a member of its security personnel, and later, and harassing a group of employees who were filming a demonstration of Navigate on Autopilot in a company-owned Model 3. The temporary restraining order is effective until May 7, when a hearing is set for the noted TSLA bear.
With Hothi’s hearing approaching, the TSLAQ community (a group of individuals aiming for Tesla to fall) has mobilized to raise funds for their fellow detractor. The GoFundMe page was started by Lawrence Fossi, a fierce Tesla critic who wrote and tweeted under the pseudonym Montana Skeptic. Fossi was one of the TSLAQ community’s most active members, at least until he was reportedly forced to cease his online activities after Elon Musk contacted his boss to complain about his actions. Fossi described the goal of the GoFundMe page for Hothi as follows.
I am Lawrence J. Fossi and wrote at Seeking Alpha under the pseudonym of Montana Skeptic. I learned today that Tesla Inc. has obtained an ex parte (only one side represented) temporary restraining order against $TSLAQ member @skabooshka.
What will follow over the next two weeks or so is “discovery” (depositions, written questions) and an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Tesla can obtain a temporary injunction. Tesla alleges @skabooshka is a dangerous person. I believe he is a seeker of truth who has done valuable work and deserves a vigorous and capable defense.
Tesla’s TRO application was triggered by @skabooshka’s effort to determine the true nature of the forthcoming “Investor Autonomy Event”. I believe important First Amendment rights are at issue, and urge you to support his effort.
Funds will be used to pay @skabooshka’s legal expenses in defending against the Tesla legal action, and in bringing any appropriate counterclaims. Any and all excess funds will be donated to a good related cause, with full disclosure about the recipient or recipients, and proof of donation sent to all donors. Many thanks.

Hothi has received an outpouring of support from the Tesla bear community. A look through the donations given to the fundraiser so far shows several known Tesla shorts, including Stanphyl Capital’s Mark Spiegel (who is tapped at times as a source for TSLA insights by mainstream media), @TeslaCharts, and Fossi himself donating significant amounts. In an update to the fundraiser, Fossi pledged that the money raised through the GoFundMe page will strictly be used for Hothi’s legal needs.
While the response to Hothi’s GoFundMe page is quite impressive, it should be noted that Tesla only filed a restraining order against the Tesla bear after he reportedly endangered the lives of three Tesla employees. On April 16, three employees were filming in a Model 3 when Hothi reportedly stalked and harassed them. So aggressive were Hothi’s actions that the Model 3’s crash avoidance systems were activated. Fearing for their safety, one of the Tesla employees in the vehicle promptly called the police to report the incident.
According to Tesla, the April incident was not the first time that Hothi committed acts against the company. Back in February, the TSLA short reportedly struck a security employee with his car when the latter was about to give him a verbal warning for trespassing into the Fremont factory’s grounds. The matter was also reported to the police, who attempted to issue a warning notice of trespass. Unfortunately, the warning was never given since Hothi proved uncooperative in meeting with Fremont police officers.
Investor's Corner
Tesla’s flying Roadster just revealed something bigger than the car
Analysts say the Roadster demo puts a Tesla and SpaceX merger back on the table.
The Roadster unveiling near Waco ended Thursday night, and by Friday morning much of the investor reaction had less to do with the car than with who owns the rocket technology inside it.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said the event “puts the Tesla/SpaceX relationship on the table in a tangible way,” pointing to the propulsion, pressure vessel and control hardware sitting on a Tesla product. Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management called the demo “a ridiculous display of engineering” with “no commercial value” beyond embarrassing traditional automakers, though he said it showed Musk wants the two companies together.
The more specific forecast came a day earlier from Barclays. Analyst Dan Levy told clients a deal could be announced before Tesla’s annual meeting, which must happen by December 6, and that an announcement in late October or early November could make shareholder approval harder. Barclays expects SpaceX to be the buyer in an all stock deal, with Tesla holders receiving SpaceX shares at a premium, based on market values of roughly $2.1 trillion for SpaceX and $1.5 trillion for Tesla. If nothing lands around the meeting, the bank still sees an announcement within 6 to 12 months.
The Roadster demo just added more weight to merger speculations. Tesla’s demo used cold gas thrusters and pressure tanks of the kind SpaceX uses on Falcon 9, and Musk described the car as a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX engineers, as we mentioned in our breakdown of the three Roadster configurations.
Musk has not publicly addressed a deal since the event, as far as we have seen. His most direct answer remains the one he gave at the All In Summit, when he said that with so much collaboration, “who can imagine what action one might take” without ruling anything out. Ives has held to a 2027 timeline since his March note, and Musk pushed back on the China piece of the speculation when ARK floated a year end announcement in August.
The next test is Tesla’s third quarter earnings call on October 21. However, we recall in July that Musk told analysts, “we can’t talk about combining companies and that kind of thing on an earnings call,” so a clear answer wouldn’t be expected.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones
Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.
Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”
He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”
Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.
Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 14, 2026
The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”
That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.
While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.
The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.